Is "Retromania" destroying culture?

[Yeps]

Now the remakes are being remade.

Let's not start that again. This is a time honored Golden Age tradition. Hollywood never had much creativity, and I don't think it has particularly suffered for the lack. There has been an Alice in Wonderland every 10 years or so since the invention of the moving picture.

 

[C-dot]

Let's not start that again. This is a time honored Golden Age tradition. Hollywood never had much creativity, and I don't think it has particularly suffered for the lack. There has been an Alice in Wonderland every 10 years or so since the invention of the moving picture.

You're right, but to be fair the Golden Era remakes were always very different than the previous version, and had the characteristic touches of the directors, actors, musicians, etc. which you don't often see today. If you watch The Greeks Had a Word for Them (1932) and How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), you'll see what I mean.

 

[Pompidou]

You're right, but to be fair the Golden Era remakes were always very different than the previous version, and had the characteristic touches of the directors, actors, musicians, etc. which you don't often see today. If you watch The Greeks Had a Word for Them (1932) and How to Marry a Millionaire (1953), you'll see what I mean.

Most remakes I can think of do get the characteristic touches of the directors, actors, etc. Consider the crop of A-list directors and their circles of partner musicians and actors. If Spielberg does a movie you can expect a score by Williams. Then there's the Burton, Elfman, Depp and H.B. Carter quartet. Yearly, they prove that there's no story that can't be improved with a pasty white protagonist and Dr. Seuss-like visuals. A movie by Michael Bay with a score by Hans Zimmer will blow up the white house and the Eiffel Tower whether the goal is an action flick or a romantic comedy, and we all know Hans Zimmer only has one flavor of music. If you don't want Zimmer's unique touch on a score, you'd best not hire him, because he just remixes his one movie score over and over - good thing it's a good one. Zach Snyder doesn't so much make movies as show off his unique visual style.

 

[Yeps]

If you don't want Zimmer's unique touch on a score, you'd best not hire him, because he just remixes his one movie score over and over - good thing it's a good one.

Yeah, Holst was a pretty good composer for action flicks.

 

[C-dot]

Most remakes I can think of do get the characteristic touches of the directors, actors, etc. Consider the crop of A-list directors and their circles of partner musicians and actors.

This is where it gets subjective, and I say that it isn't the same quality of work today as it was in the Golden Era.

 

[scottyrocks]

No, retromania isn't destroying culture. That's a bit too serious a diagnosis, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Here's a provocative argument: subcultures are destroying culture. We no longer share a common frame of cultural reference in the way that people of the Era did, where everyone, no matter what their walk of life, could likely identify Clark Gable and Carole Lombard, David and Bathsheba, John Alden and Priscilla Mullins, Emmy Schmaltz and Lord Plushbottom, Amos and Andy, Joe DiMaggio, Sir John Falstaff, Dick Tracy, Natty Bumppo, Hester Prynne, John L. Lewis, Topsy and Eva, Dorothy Dix, Walter Winchell, Aesop, Mr. Micawber, and Donald Duck. It may have been a hodgepodge culture, absorbed from dozens of different sources and blended in the melting pot, but it was a unified one. Now, increasingly, our culture is fragmented into tiny, interest-specific niches, and our culture is marketed within those niches. The national fabric is a patchwork rather than a unified whole, and I think that's Balkanizing us more than it's building us up as a society.

 

[C-dot]

Here's a provocative argument: subcultures are destroying culture.

That's a good point. Average Joe Citizen doesn't exist - everyone has a label, whether it's a more mainstream label like "yuppie" or a bona fide subculture. Depending on which of these subcultures the person I am chatting to is interested in, I probably won't know the prominent people, style, or sayings, which gives us no common ground. A prime example of this is when an acquaintance told me he was "into David Guetta," and I stared at him blankly, trying to figure out who or what that was.

 

[scottyrocks]

This is probably a result of the information revolution that is the internet and cable TV. There is so much more available from so many outlets that it is possible to find new things almost daily. There is little to no way to be up on everything that is out there. Groups of people find things, in this vast landscape, that they are interested in, and we have the aformentioned sub-cultures.

 

[Pompidou]

Back in the day, culture was so homogenized, that they even formed the House Committee on Un-American Activities, from 1938-75, to make sure that culture stayed that way. It's a good thing they did too, because if Charlie Chaplin got his way, who knows how America would've ended up. I'll take subcultures over some bureaucrat telling me what I'm supposed to like and dislike any day. Granted, I do like my grandmothers and apple pie, but I'm not into baseball. The problem when you can tell, immediately, who comprises "us" is that you can make life miserable for everyone who doesn't. It was so once, and they did. I like culture divided - keeps any one from throwing its weight around.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Actually, HUAC originally focused on Nazi/Fascist subversive groups, and they didn't pay too much attention to Mr. Chaplin at that point, considering he shared their views on those organizations.

Some subcultures, most of us could likely agree, we could do without.

 

[C-dot]

I like culture divided - keeps any one from throwing its weight around.

It is kind of lonely, though... It's hard to establish any sense of community with people when you're either "in" or you're "out."

Besides, most people knew that McCarthy was a crackpot by the early 50's.

 

[Pompidou]

Some subcultures, most of us could likely agree, we could do without.

While I agree, there are some subcultures we could do without, that's not a road I think should ever be traveled.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The gist of my point being, it's pretty easy to justify targeting unpopular groups X, Y and Z, but it never stops there, and pretty soon, all you're allowed to be is A. For what it's worth, I don't think a person has a right to live unoffended, either. Free speech, expression, etc - it's too important to sacrifice for the peace of mind of the current majority. The best way to prevent that is to fracture any growing majority. Majorities almost always tend to abuse their power.

So, I agree - I'd love to see an end to certain groups, but I don't want to see the end come from the top down. It's got to come from within.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

While I agree, there are some subcultures we could do without, that's not a road I think should ever be traveled.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The gist of my point being, it's pretty easy to justify targeting unpopular groups X, Y and Z, but it never stops there, and pretty soon, all you're allowed to be is A. For what it's worth, I don't think a person has a right to live unoffended, either. Free speech, expression, etc - it's too important to sacrifice for the peace of mind of the current majority. The best way to prevent that is to fracture any growing majority. Majorities almost always tend to abuse their power.

So, I agree - I'd love to see an end to certain groups, but I don't want to see the end come from the top down. It's got to come from within.

My only comment regarding what you have stated here in this, is upon the sentence about un offended. Freedom is what that expressed to me. Freedom has always been paid for by those willing to give everything to preserve.

The original hopeful product of this thread was to toss the idea or question regarding retro mania and if it does or could destroy a culture? My take on it is no. It would not destroy anything, yet rather add to the already large and vast amount of diversity that already exists.

I sort of example my statement by even the location where I currently live. Very few residents wear a Fedora. I seldom see even older men wearing them, and there is no hats stores in town for selling them. However, many people that see me wearing a fedora, will stop and give me a compliment and some ask me where they may purchase a fedora. Remotely if even a 10th of the population purchased a fedora and wore them, it would not do anything at all in changing the remaining population that did not desire to wear one. To me this sticks more to the point of "retro" than to give an example of things that have happened in the past that was so damaging or evil such as a socialist or nazi movement. I make this point as such, that at the time period of nazi germany, for the nazi minds that wanted to force things to be "their way" and to do all the corrupt things that were evil, was not a "retro" ideal or action, as at the time, it was something current and new. To desire to act and be that evil today would be retro evil, but as you notice, any groups today that would dwell upon that sort of participation is a lost minority and I think not a growing trend at all.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Actually, HUAC originally focused on Nazi/Fascist subversive groups, and they didn't pay too much attention to Mr. Chaplin at that point, considering he shared their views on those organizations.

Some subcultures, most of us could likely agree, we could do without.

I can observe this picture was taken a while back. Not sure when nor where. However, I have lived in many places and not once have I observed this activity. I am sure it exists at some places yet today, but it is not something so popular as to surface much in today's social settings as to upset the apple cart, so to speak.

I further have ZERO problem stating that I love this Nation, and would freely give my life to keep the United States a free Nation. I would also be right on the side walk ready to kick some butt, if any "parade" such as the one in this picture was to take place in my neck of the woods.

 

[BigFitz]

I humbly submit that what the writer considers to be retro, is STILL pop culture.

Exactly.

 

[LocktownDog]

I would also be right on the side walk ready to kick some butt, if any "parade" such as the one in this picture was to take place in my neck of the woods.

Parades and demonstrations like these happen fairly regularly. Its their free speech right. Fortunately far more show up in protest of them.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

While I agree, there are some subcultures we could do without, that's not a road I think should ever be traveled.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Jazz immortal Charles Mingus performed a variation on the poem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVRVmrvrU24

[video=youtube;DVRVmrvrU24]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVRVmrvrU24[/video]

 

[Gingerella72]

I think you could argue that even with nostalgia trends of the past, a very strong vein of contemporary popular culture has always been prevalent. Now, we are so engrained in borrowing a majority from times gone by, that the present popular culture (like it or no) has really atrophied. Popular culture seems to have topped in the late 80s early 90s. From there, it was a majority retread of times gone by so much so that I feel that's all we are now. Popular culture now is a dominance or recycling past eras, not just highlighting them.

Its lazy.
LD

I was thinking along these same lines recently, though not because of the original topic here.....it seems like this past decade, 2000 - 2010, seems rather lost to me in the pop culture department. Each decade seems to have its defining aura that is easily felt, seen or heard.....70's disco, polyester....80's mall hair and Madonna.....90's grunge and Nirvana....but what is unique to the 00's?

To me, the 00's seem like this weird conglomeration of the last 40 years thrown into a blender and spritzed with some glitter and Starbucks. I don't see anything that in 20 years, looking back on this decade, will make me say "Oh yes, that was so 2000's." So, it doesn't surprise me that there has been such a keen interest the last few years in looking backwards for inspiration. The trendsetters seem to have lost their way.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The 00's -- the first full Internet Decade. Connectivity. Walking around with a device glued to the side of your head. Not being able to go to the toilet without sharing it with the world in 140 characters or less.

And I suggest that it's *that* more than anything that's destroyed popular culture. Everything isn't just reduced to the lowest common denominator, it's also reduced to the lowest possible denominator of superficiality. No room for any substance, no room for any nuance, just turn it into another jokey meme and then move on. The idea of any sort of true, shared mass pop culture experience, like Amos and Andy in the 1930s or the Beatles in the 1960s or whatever it was that people cared about in the '80s, can't survive that kind of fragmentation and compression.